Travis Tumlinson and the Stone Maps

[Mike McChesney]

If Janie had told me the same thing she told Garry, I would have gladly backed up his post with one of my own.

I have always said that although I believe the stone maps to be authentic, I am not such a kool-aid drinker that I would ignore absolute evidence proving they were hoaxes. If hard evidence was shown to me, I would be the very first in line to admit I was mistaken.

Mike

[Mike McChesney]

Joe,

I consider myself to be on equal with Garry when it comes to honesty and integrity. If he tells me something, I work on the assumption that what he told me was gospel. Someone would have to prove to me that Garry was being less than honest in any situation.

It's funny that when Garry posts information that supports your belief, he gets nothing but praise and admiration from your every post. Then I post something contradictory and I am greeted with accusatory disbelief. HHHHHMMMMMMMMM

True colors seem to be peeking out!

Mike

[Mike McChesney]

To continue my previous:

When Garry posted the information he was given, my first thought was "Why would Janie have told Garry that and me something completely different?" The thought that Garry was lying never entered my mind. I started trying to imagine why her stories would have been so different.

Joe's first thought seems to have been that I was not telling the truth. Joe, I will never forget your reaction in this. When you questioned some things in the past, I have never had any qualms about emailing you and privately telling you names or circumstances in confidence. There were only two people that knew I was in contact with Janie T.

I knew that when I posted my conversation with her that it would be controversial, but I never expected my honesty to be questioned! I won't forget it, I promise!

Best-Mike

[Joe Ribaudo]

Mike,

Sorry you feel that way. You seem rather quick to jump on my motives for that post. I don't question your honesty at all. Because I also know Garry, and much better than I know you, I trust his truthfulness. Garry has backed up his statements each and every time with hard evidence.

I trust you as well but, most of the time, I think you will agree, you depend on the trustworthiness of your word to establish the truth of your statements. That has always been good enough for me, and it is now.

That being the case, it seems to me that the situation is this: Garry has been told one thing about the facts, you have been told something directly opposite by the same source. The only thing that has changed, other than the passage of a few years, is that the source has decided to write a book.

You might question if that book had anything to do with the changing of the story. Garry met with Janie in the company of his wife, on a number of occasions. In that kind of situation, I believe most women would feel more at ease than meeting a strange man, by himself. I have met with them on two occasions, and know just how easy they are to like.

You have yet to make that personal contact with Janie. When I compare the two, Garry and his wife come up with a decided edge. Don't you agree?

My post listed things as I saw them coming down. Let's get back to examining the evidence instead of questioning the messengers.

Take care,

Joe

[Mike McChesney]

Joe,

Questioning the evidence is what I expected from you previously.

Actually, no I don't give any edge to Garry over me. MOST of the time, my assertions are backed up with evidence. SOMETIMES because of confidences my word has to do. In all my years of posting on the few forums I follow, I have never been shown to be anything but honest. No one has ever shown me to have lied about any subject.

Maybe she just decided to write that book a year or so ago. I can't assign any motives to anything anyone else does. While I can imagine several reasons why she might say one thing to me and another to someone else, but not personally knowing her, I can't say for certain. I had thought about her story changing coinciding with her writing a book, but "quien sabe?" Maybe she just told me what she thought I wanted to hear, and told Garry the truth.

It IS possible that she didn't like being found by Larry and Garry. Even though she said different, I think she didn't really like being found by me. Being from the South, I know a bit more about Southern Hospitality than most. Even if you aren't particularly pleased about the reason for a person showing up at your doorstep, if they are polite and don't offend, then you play the polite host, tell them what you want (not necessarily what they want), tell them it was a pleasure meeting them, and wave goodbye.

Like I said, I can't say for certain why people do what they do, I only repeat what was said to me.


Mike

[Joe Ribaudo]

Mike,

[Joe,

Questioning the evidence is what I expected from you previously.]

OK, so why did you read into my questioning, that I was calling you a liar? The book seemed to be the important new detail to me.

When I consider your truth, Garry's truth and my truth, the book seems to be an important factor in the equation. Who got the truth from her? Did the truth change after she decided to write about her families history?

You may think you are on equal footing with Garry, as to if the woman is telling the truth, but he has met her face to face on more than one occasion. I will give him the edge on judging the woman's honesty.

Take care,

Joe

[Mike McChesney]

Joe,

I'm not an idiot. If the book was what was important to you, then why did you have to do the whole "summing up" all the points? If the book was what was important to you, that should have been the first words off your fingertips. The throwing all of Garry's experience with Janie and then showing how little interaction I have had was completely unnecessary if not to show that Garry's information was superior to mine.

That is water under the bridge though.

I sent a message to Janie asking about the difference in what she said, but have yet to hear from her.

Best-Mike

[Mike McChesney]

Maybe in your eyes Garry's information is better because he has had several, personal interactions with Janie Tumlinson. That is not true.

The ONLY thing that matters is that she told differing stories to both of us. Not just differing, but VASTLY differing.

Now, Garry is like myself in that we both took her at her word as to the truth of what she told us. You know, she may have told both of us what she thought we wanted to hear based on our conversations, and the truth could be a third and completely different thing!

Like I said before, I can ascribe no motives to anybody would do anything. I can only repeat what was told to me. I provided the transcript of our conversations pertinent back-and-forths. Whether anybody chooses to believe Garry, believe me, or believe both of us, is entirely up to them.

Best-Mike

[Joe Ribaudo]

Mike,

We have gone way too far with this back and forth. This is Garry's thread and I will leave it to him. I for one, want to see what else he has to add.

Take care my friend,

Joe

[Mrs. Oroblanco]

Mike,

I believe, at this point, it is not necessarily a case of believing Garry or believing you, but rather - believing the source.

Beth

[Ozarker]

Hello All:

I think we kind of got off track here.

I don't think Garry ever indicated that Janie told him he was the first to contact her. Rather, I believe that reference was to Larry Webb.

This is an excerpt of what Garry actually said in his post:

That was certainly not my sense from Larry’s initial and subsequent contacts. Larry did ask Janie if she had been in contact with anyone in the LDM community previously and her answer was no.

In the very next post, Mike McChesney said:

In Garry's post he states that she told him he was the first to contact her, then in our conversation she said she had been found previously "but did not welcome it." So, since Garry was the first to find her, she must have been speaking about him when she sad that to me.


I've read this entire thread again, thinking I might have missed something, but for the life of me I cannot find where Garry ever said that Janie told him he was the first to contact her.

Sometimes we see, read, or remember something that was a misinterpretation of what was actually the case, even when the conversation is fresh in one's mind (and, in this particular case, is staring one in the face). That has certainly happened to me before, and probably to all of us at one time or another.

Regardless, I can understand why Garry started this thread with the statement that he would try to frame the story with a minimum of speculation, and simply try to relate the details of what he and Carol had found.

I'm not a big fan of the stones, but I do find the history behind some of the players interesting, and would like to pass along my thanks to both the family and to the Cundiffs for making it available to the rest of us.

I suspect there is still more that Garry would like to share, and he is probably wondering how best to go about it now after the recent series of posts. My hope is that he continues to present this fascinating insight into Travis Tumlinson's early days. This is something nobody has done before, and it could very well provide a basis for understanding the true nature of the stones.

In my opinion, we are all very lucky to be hearing some of these details. It is through the good graces of the family, and Garry's willingness to openly share research, that we're hearing and seeing it at all. It was no small feat to bring this research forward, considering all the things that had to come together in order to make it possible. For instance, what if Larry Webb or Bernice McGee had passed away before the Cundiffs had a chance to get to know them? What if Garry and Carol had been unsuccessful in establishing contact with the Tumlinson family? What if the cabin and chimney where young Travis sharpened his stone-carving skills had been bulldozed as Garry and Carol feared? What if the family had not kept the other stone safe, but had simply lost it or sold it off?

And after all that, what if Garry had decided that this subject was too controversial to ever present on the forum?

My guess is we would be in the same pattern we've been in for years, hearing tales based on theories that nobody is willing to source or document. The way I see this shaping up, it appears there may be an alternate explanation for how the stones were created, other than the tales involving Jesuits, or Peraltas, or thefts from churches in Old Mexico.

Keep up the good work, Garry. I have several questions, but they may get answered as you get further along. Don't get discouraged!

Larry

[novice]

Mike and Joe,

You guys have been busy.

First I want to encourage everyone to read what I have written in more depth. I have repeated on more than one occasion that it was Larry Webb who first approached Janie. I have also said that a short time after meeting Janie in 2008, Carol and I thought she had lost interest. We did send her a lot of family information, obituaries, some of the Mitchell and Hainer letters, a picture of Pegleg, etc. but there was no response after early 2009.

Joe,

I want to make sure we’re on the same page where I have used the term family. We only visited in Janie’s home once and the only other contact was through some correspondence. The 2010 and 2011 trips to Texas did not involve Janie. Janie’s grandmother and Joe’s grandfather were brother and sister. Joe’s grandfather and father went into the Superstitions with Travis in about 1950. (From Joe’s mother and Travis’s manuscript.)

When Larry visited Texas, in 2007, Joe’s father was living but by the time we were there in 2010 he had passed away. Joe’s mother had also lost contact with Janie and remarked that Janie was unaware that her husband had died. Janie and her mother had stayed with Joe’s family while her mother was being treated in the hospital in Houston (1963). I gave her Janie and Richard’s new address and when we returned to Missouri we sent Janie a letter along with the obituary informing her of the death. She did not respond to us but I think she may have contacted Joe’s mother.

Mike,

Thanks for sharing your conversation with Janie. Of course we had never heard the book story but that might begin to explain some things. I did find your interview technique interesting. I was expecting some questions.

I would not be quick to question anyone’s integrity or honesty. My wife and I felt Richard and Janie were both fine people and unless a lot of additional information is uncovered that will remain the case. Of course Mike and I are convinced we are telling the unvarnished truth but, even though we may try to remain neutral, it’s hard to not allow our preconceived ideas from creeping in.

Janie told Mike that Travis wasn’t trying to hoax anyone and we have immediately translated that into her denial that Travis carved the stone maps.

I still feel there may be much more to this portion of the story than we are seeing. I think there may be another shoe or two to drop.

If we keep in mind that we are all seeking the same thing and that is the “truth”, we can all learn something along the way.

Garry

[Mike McChesney]

Hey Garry,

Same thing happened between Janie and myself. After some initial conversation, and my offering to assist her in any way I could with getting information for her book, she just clammed up.

As far as my interview technique; I have been selling cars for the last 14 years or so. One of my gifts is that I am very good at sizing up people and getting a good read on what they are thinking or feeling based on the conversation. At first she seemed very put off that I had found her. She assumed I was another treasure hunter. Notice when I said that I was trying to find the "true history" of the stones she replied "history?" That told me she didn't believe I was doing this for educational purposes. As a matter of fact, our whole conversation prior to my answer to her "history?" was very careful.

When someone is like that, the very last thing you want to do is pepper them with questions. Notice how, after my answer to "history?" the entire mood of the conversation brightened up. She seemed almost cheery after that (i/m so glad you found me). I didn't include the entire conversation, but I did gently probe with a couple of questions, but she said that was all going to have to wait for the book. When someone does that, the last thing you want to do is get pushy. I figured there would be other conversations and other opportunities to ask questions, so I let it rest.

The way she clammed up on both of us, I would be willing to bet almost anything it was not her doing. My guess is that we have what we in the car business call a "second baseman." A third party that may or may not have anything to do with her book. She tells them about the conversation, and they fill her head with crap about us, and she gets scared and clams up. More car deals have been screwed up by second basemen who think they know everything or want to impress their friend than I can remember. LOL

As far as the "I have been found before, but haven't welcomed it" line. I don't know if she was talking about Larry or Garry or both of them (or even someone else that came in between us).

Whatever the truth is, it will eventually come out. It doesn't concern me that much (although I would like to know what the truth is).

Best-Mike

[Mike McChesney]

oh, and about the "hoaxing" comment. I thought about that as well, but if he had carved them, not intending to hoax anybody, then why would he let his uncle take the stones and not tell him?

We know Robert had possession of the stones for a time because of his landlord and treasure hunting sponsor Dr. Gene Davis. In the late 1950s, Robert had the stones in boxes under his bed. I had always read that when Travis first became ill, he let Robert take the stones, and when Robert lost his health, he gave them back. That does not seem to be the case. Maybe this was when Robert stole the stones from Travis (when he first became ill). Then Travis and he had the falling out (which a gunshot might have figured into) when Travis recovered the stones. That could be why four years after his nephew's death, Robert had no idea that both Travis and Alleen were deceased.

Mike

[novice]

Mike,

One thing I have not been able to get my arms around was when and how Travis got the maps back from Uncle Bob. It was sometime after 1956, if the Gene Dais timeline is correct. I am positive that the Gene Davis story is spot on.

When I mentioned that there may be another shoe dropping , I was roughly following your scenario regarding a "second baseman". My specualtion is that she may be writng her "book" in partnership with a third party.

I need to find an old post and do some additional checking. I believed that I was the only person Larry was working with but he may well have been sharing information with a third party also. Again just speculation.

What a tangled web we weave,

Garry

[zentull]

Fascinating and not what I expected. I would like to relate that I had contact with individual who told me that a certain Dutch Hunting story was fake. I was surprised at how quickly it came up and was hoping for more of a story than what I got.

In the end the folks who were suspicious of the story all along agreed and those who believe in the tale think I was lied to. I figure even if I had an audio recording or video there would be folks that couldn't deal with it. It is the very thing that can be frustrating in researching this stuff and at the same time it is part of the beauty of Dutch Hunting lore and how these stories are so unique.

Jesse said it best in another post, it's about the man who believes in the story more so than the story itself sometimes.

[Mike McChesney]

Hey Wayne,

Maybe you're not reading this right. It has nothing to do with whether anybody believes the stone maps are authentic or not.

The only thing here is that Travis Tumlinson's Daughter told Garry and Larry one thing a few years ago, and told me something completely different two months ago.

If they are authentic, then great. If they are fakes, then so be it. I just want to know which it is.

Mike

[Somehiker]

Garry and Mike:
If Janie is writing a book,then she is doing research which may add to her knowledge of all that pertains to the stones.Researchers often change their beliefs,if open minded, in the process.Could be that she formerly had little interest in the topic,perhaps hadn't even read the manuscript until recently or spoken with other family about her father's activities.
It would have been a traumatic time for her in so many ways.

Regards:SH.

[novice]

After the chimney, Joe continued our tour. He took us to a shallow road cut that exposed some very soft sandstone. It looked like everyone in the neighborhood had carved their name and it was probably 150 yards long. It looked like it weathered very quickly and older carvings had not survived. There was a thin iron rich cap rock on top that was harder. I thought it might be, similar to the stone tablet material so I collected a chunk. I’ve probably misplaced it already.

We returned to the house and Joe took us to a shed that contained the artifacts that I mentioned earlier in the thread. I will share some things about them later. We took a few pictures and then went outside to view the stone that Travis had carved. We took some photos and we discussed Travis’s manuscript. It had been an exciting day for us.

I will tackle Travis’s stone carving first because again I believe it is another item that adds weight to the family story that Travis also carved the stone maps.

The question of why and when Travis made this carving come to mind. It obviously has Spanish and Treasure connotations but we cannot tell when Travis carved it.

Questions:

Could this have been Travis’s initial carving attempt, before creating the Peralta Stones? It’s hard for me to look at it and see any resemblance to a map but I would say the same thing about the horse/witch stone. Was it intended to be part of the sequence? It does seem to represent an earlier Spanish period.

Physical Characteristics:

The stone is larger and thicker than the stone maps and therefore much heavier. It’s not something that would be easy to handle and transport. The periphery has not been shaped and the thickness may represent what we would find in a naturally weathered sedimentary sandstone rock that has fallen away from its parent rock.

There are carvings on both sides. The first side is a large carving of a Spanish Galleon and that photo is included below. This will give you a sense of the size, the type of stone, and the amount of detail included.



The second side has a fairly large picture of a treasure chest, a date of 1535 and the words MADRID, SPAIN. On the lid of the chest are the words EL L??? Below the Treasure Chest portion are the words: “MUCHO DINERO AMIGO and then ESCONDIDA. At the very bottom edge we see CHARLES V. All of the lettering is in uppercase printing similar to that on the Horse Map.

I want to prepare a document that compares the Block Lettering on Travis’s stone with the Block Lettering on the Horse Map. Until I get around to that, I’m not prepared to share a photo of that side. I want to have some fun!

I do understand a comparison of block lettering ,to indicate if we have a common author, is shaky at best but who knows.

Someone might want to tackle the timeframe of the Carved Spanish Galleon, the date of 1535 and Charles V. Maybe someone can spot something else on this face. I think I do see some additional Letters, Roman Numerals or something to the right of the mast? It’s kind of like looking at clouds. It looks a little bit different each time I blow it up.

How authentic is the Galleon? Did Travis have to have had some knowledge of Spanish history? Maybe someone has actually seen this particular image of a Galleon in a book? How many masts? Gun Ports? Etc.

The message on the other side is rather crude? Mucho Dinero Amigo? I wouldn’t think that that would give much confidence to its authenticity if it was created to represent a Spanish Treasure message. Maybe that’s why he apparently never went public with this carving, he thought he could do better.

Taking Stock:

The documented history of the stone maps begin with TravisTumlinson. I know there are stories that insist they have a much longer history, stories of other peoples involvement, etc but until someone can come up with something concrete, those stories will just remain the domain of individuals seeking attention.

Travis Tumlinson made two separate sandstone carvings that have survived, at least one of which reflects a Spanish Treasure theme. The Peralta Stone Maps are similar enough to suggest the family story, that Travis cared the stone maps, deserves serious consideration. Conversely, I haven’t seen any evidence at all that he didn’t carve them. Maybe the analysis of the lettering will raise some doubts. Even then it will probably boil down to what the person wants to believe.

Garry

[Cubfan64]

Even then it will probably boil down to what the person wants to believe.

THAT you can count on

[Ozarker]

I can't make out the lettering to the right of the sails, but I can see that the 1535 date is included on this side of the stone as well (inside the top-most row of sails).

Of course, the reference to Charles V and the 1535 date puts us back in the time of the conquistadors.

Charles had a multitude of royal titles. Notably, he was not only the first King of Spain, known as Charles I (beginning in 1516), but was also the Emperor of the Holy Roman Empire, when he became known as Charles V (beginning in 1519).

During the time of Charles' reign, Spain settled the Greater Antilles in the Caribbean, and took over large areas on mainland North and South America, overrunning the Aztecs and Incas. (Source: Wikipedia)

The conquest of the Aztecs by Cortes had begun in the early 1520s, and that empire was already in severe decline by the time of Pizzaro's conquest of the Incan Empire, which began in the early 1530s.

In 1532, the Incan ruler, Atahualpa, who had been captured by Pizzaro, was ransomed for a substantial amount of gold and silver, and the story goes that the ransom "began to arrive from Cuzco on 20 December 1532 and flowed steadily from then on. By 3 May 1533 Pizarro received all the treasure he had requested; it was melted, refined, and made into bars." [Wikipedia]. Even though the ransom had been paid, Atahualpa was put to death by the Spanish in August 1533.

Of course, the conquistador's conquest of the America's would continue for many years, and there are tons of stories on the internet about the plunder, which would then be shipped back to Spain. I guess the question is what type of knowledge would Travis Tumlinson have of that period of history, and was he already enchanted about stories of lost Spanish treasure?

One thing is for certain, and that is that Travis displayed a lot more skill in carving this stone. It's impressive when compared with the relatively crude carvings on the chimney, and seems to suggest that stone carving was something that Travis continued to work on long after his early teenage years.

Larry

[Ozarker]

The following are excerpts from Wikipedia articles that help to frame the 1535 date:


Viceroyalty of New Spain

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Viceroyalty_of_New_Spain

"The creation of a viceroyalty in the Americas was a result of the Spanish conquest of the Aztec Empire (1519 to 1521). The lands and societies brought under Spanish control were of unprecedented complexity and wealth, which presented both an incredible opportunity and a threat to the Crown of Castile. The societies could provide the conquistadors, especially Hernán Cortés, a base from which to become autonomous, or even independent, of the Crown. As a result the Holy Roman Emperor and King of Spain, Charles V created the Council of the Indies in 1524.

A few years later the first mainland Audiencia was created in 1527 to take over the administration of New Spain from Hernán Cortés. An earlier Audiencia had been established in Santo Domingo in 1526 to deal with the Caribbean settlements. The Audiencia, housed in the Casa Reales in Santo Domingo, was charged with encouraging further exploration and settlements under its own authority. Management by the Audiencia, which was expected to make executive decisions as a body, proved unwieldy.

Therefore in 1535, King Charles V named Antonio de Mendoza as the first Viceroy of New Spain. After the Spanish conquest of the Inca Empire in 1532 opened up the vast territories of South America to further conquests, the Crown established an independent Viceroyalty of Peru there in 1540."

Antonio de Mendoza

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antonio_de_Mendoza

"Antonio de Mendoza y Pacheco, Marquis of Mondéjar, Count of Tendilla (Spanish: Antonio de Mendoza, Marqués de Mondéjar, Conde de Tendilla) (1495 – Alcala la Real, (Jaén); July 21, 1552, Lima), was the first viceroy of New Spain, serving from April 17, 1535 to November 25, 1550, and the second viceroy of Peru, from September 23, 1551 to July 21, 1552. Married to María Ana de Trujillo de Mendoza.

He became viceroy in 1535 and governed for 15 years, longer than any subsequent viceroy. On his arrival in New Spain, he found a recently conquered colony beset with Indian uprisings and rivalry among the conquerors. His difficult assignment was to govern in the king's name without making an enemy of Hernán Cortés, whom Emperor Charles V (King Charles I of Spain) and the Council of the Indies judged too rough to be made a duke and given any higher post than the Captaincy-General of New Spain, a post for which he was well suited. He was also directed to increase royal revenues and regulate the affairs of the Indians.

As viceroy, Mendoza commissioned the expedition of Francisco Vásquez de Coronado to explore and establish settlements in the northern lands of New Spain in 1540-42, the expedition of Juan Rodríguez Cabrillo to explore the western coastline of Alta California in 1542-43, and the expedition of Ruy López de Villalobos to the Philippines in 1542-43. The Codex Mendoza is named for him. He probably commissioned it."

[novice]

Larry,

Some nice work. I had certainly not spotted the 1535 date on the ship side of the stone. I also suspect you are on to something regarding the correlation between 1535 date on the stone and the appointment of Mendosa as the first Viceroy of New Spain in 1535.

It seems to become more apparent that Travis was familiar with some of the history of New Spain and he was incorporating that into the galleon tablet. Charles V was no accident either.

I’m not sure what is happening in the image along the top of the masts. I’m also not sure where the ship’s mast ends and something else begins. Pennants, Face, etc.

I suspect if we could revisit the actual stone some additional information might become apparent but for the time being we are stuck.

Garry

[Joe Ribaudo]

Larry and Garry,

That's a nice piece of history to add to the mix.

It seems to me that if Travis carved the Stone Maps, it goes without saying that he has a good deal of Spanish history and (claimed Spanish treasure sign) knowledge in his background.

Should either Garry or Mike get some kind of reply from Janie, which I seriously doubt will happen, how do we believe whichever story she backs up now? I think Mike hit it on the head about a family member stepping in and bringing her to her $$$enses.

That being said, we already have corroboration of Garry's story by Larry, assuming Garry didn't get it wrong, which I seriously doubt. Mike came on the "evidence" much later, and after Janie decided to write a book. Most people write books with the object of making some money........not all, but I believe most.

The stones being authentic to a Spanish treasure has much more appeal than....."My father carved them in our back yard." A treasure story would excite the public at large, this hoax would have limited appeal......just a few hundred Dutch Hunters, and I am using the name in the broadest sense.

I would love to see another face to face meeting between Garry, Carol and Janie. Matter of fact, I would probably pay good money for that ticket.

Nice background work Larry........

Take care,

Joe

[Cubfan64]

I wonder if the possibility exists that one or more of the "stone maps" were truly discovered somewhere and that Travis only created one or two of the others for another purpose - be it to confuse/mislead other treasure hunters, amusement or other reason.

If that were the case, what Jane told Mike, Larry and Garry isn't necessarily a lie to any of them.

*shrug*